Search

Background: Many maternity services in Australia offer women a variety of models of care including midwife led models. Childbearing women, however, need to understand the differences between these models if they are to make an informed decision about their choice of care. Decision Aids (DA) help people decide when there is not a single best option and the best decision will be based upon the values of the decision maker. There is no current tool that focuses on the choice of midwife led vs other models of maternity care., Aim: This research aimed to develop, and pilot test a Decision Aid focusing on the choice between midwife led and standard models of maternity care., Methods: The DA was developed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and pilot tested for acceptability with a group of clinicians who provide antenatal care in one jurisdiction in Australia. A posttest only study was conducted assessing knowledge, acceptability and decisional conflict, with a group of women of childbearing age living in the jurisdiction., Findings: A DA was developed and pilot acceptability testing with 14 women and 13 clinicians of Australian Capital Territory (ACT) health demonstrated its acceptability and highlighting areas for further development., Discussion: Some revisions may be needed to address issues of balance and bias toward midwife-led care identified by some recipients., Conclusion: Pilot acceptability testing with women and staff of ACT health provides a steppingstone to further research, development and evaluation of this DA., (Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Surgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life., Methods and Analysis: We will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery., Ethics and Dissemination: This study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN10386621., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)